Ukraine’s Ugly Elections

By the Editors -
Oct 26, 2012

An ex-convict turned president and
an ex-prime minister turned convict. A former striker for AC
Milan and a world heavyweight boxing champion. The vote playing
out this weekend in Ukraine has no shortage of colorful
characters.

The parliamentary elections also promise no dramatic
turnovers. Instead, they may well accelerate a dangerous
consolidation of executive power. And the response of the
European Union and the U.S. will do much to determine whether
Ukraine moves down the path of democracy or sinks deeper into a
morass of corruption and soft authoritarianism.

The Party of Regions, led by President Viktor Yanukovych
(whose troubled youth did, in fact, land him in jail twice), is
expected to win about a quarter of the vote. Next, with about 16
percent, is likely to be the UDAR (an acronym that also means
“punch”) party led by the boxing champ Vitali Klitschko. Poised
for third place is an opposition coalition that includes the
Fatherland Party of jailed ex-prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
The other two parties projected to clear the 5 percent threshold
for representation are the Communists (who have partnered with
Yanukovych) and the right-wing Svoboda party.

Changing Rules

Several thousand observers from the EU, the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other international
groups will watch the polls. But much mischief has already
occurred, including bribery, assault, advertising buyouts and
media suppression. Complicating this year’s contest is a change
in electoral rules orchestrated by Yanukovych that turns half
the parliament’s seats into “single-mandate” constituencies,
which can be easily swayed or bought. There has also been an
eruption of nominally independent small parties, whose purpose
seems to be to splinter the opposition. Over the last two years,
moreover, the president has rolled back reforms that limited
executive power, a process that some fear may be further
institutionalized by this election.

It’s an ugly contrast to the 2010 vote that ushered
Yanukovych into office, after he beat Tymoshenko in elections
widely deemed free and fair. Unfortunately, Yanukovych walked
away from promises to reform the economy and curb corruption.
Instead, he embarked on a trumped-up prosecution of Tymoshenko
and several of her Cabinet ministers; she and Yuri Lutsenko, the
former interior minister, are now in jail.

Those cases, as well as a crackdown on press freedoms and
dissent, led Freedom House in January 2011 to downgrade Ukraine
to the status of “partly free.” Such abuses also prompted the EU
to suspend progress on an Association Agreement that has the
potential to transform Ukraine’s economy.

Simultaneously, Yanukovych has presided over a worsening
decline in Ukraine’s economy, which grew 5.2 percent last year,
but may have entered a recession last quarter. The current-
account deficit almost doubled to $8.6 billion through August.
The Ukrainian Equities Index (UX) is down 47 percent this year, a
steeper decline than for any other benchmark, data compiled by
Bloomberg show. In addition to jeopardizing its trade agreement
with the EU, Ukraine is also embroiled in a dispute with Russia
over natural-gas supplies.

Most disturbingly, corruption under Yanukovych has become
what Freedom House dubbed the “greatest threat” to Ukraine’s
democracy and sovereignty. The former Soviet Republic’s rank in
Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has
slipped from 134 to 152, on par with Tajikistan. The
concentration of wealth around Yanukovych, his family and their
associates -- what some Ukrainians call the “familyization” of
their economy -- has turned one of the president’s sons, trained
as a dentist, into one of the country’s richest men.

Brazen Behavior

This increasingly brazen behavior has disquieted even
Ukraine’s oligarchs. Some have sponsored political parties or
candidates to protect their interests. And an increasingly
vibrant civil society, with monitoring groups such as Opora and
Chesno, is also stepping into the breach.

The EU can keep the pressure on by setting a high bar for
certifying the elections as fair and refusing to move on its
Association Agreement until Tymoshenko and her former colleague
are released without prejudice. While U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton joined her EU counterpart, Catherine Ashton, in
calling for Ukraine to address such issues, the U.S. has
seemingly been more focused on Ukraine’s strategic attributes
than Yanukovych’s democratic failings. Instead of granting
Yanukovych grip and grins, as he did at the United Nations last
month, President Barack Obama would be wise to follow the lead
of those in Congress who seek to remind autocrats that bad
behavior has consequences, including possible restrictions such
as a ban on travel to the U.S.

In addition, both the U.S. and the EU can ensure that the
International Monetary Fund does not extend a frozen $15.4
billion loan to Ukraine unless it enacts some promised economic
reforms. Measures such as bringing natural-gas prices more in
line with the market have the added benefit of reducing
opportunities for corruption; instead of using broad subsidies,
Ukraine’s government can ease the burden of higher prices on the
poor with targeted payments.

In 2015, Ukraine will elect its next president. Over the
next two years, the nation’s friends should ensure that that
vote, unlike this one, reflects the untrammeled will of its
people.